Microsoft cofounder drops patent bomb on Apple, Google, Facebook

Paul Allen, entrepreneur and cofounder of Microsoft, has filed a lawsuit against 11 companies for infringements on his Web search patents. Announced on Friday afternoon, the suit names Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, YouTube, and Microsoft partner Yahoo as defendants for violating four Interval Licensing LLC patents, though the court will likely have to weigh whether the patents in question are "obvious" or not.

The patents revolve around three main concepts: browser use for navigating through information, managing a user's peripheral attention while using a device, and alerting users to items of current interest. They collectively address the general concept of presenting searched-for information to a user along with related news articles, media (such as music or videos), status updates from friends, or data (such as stock or weather info).

Needless to say, numerous Internet companies make use of such concepts, including, of course, Microsoft. However, Microsoft has managed to escape Allen's ire for the time being, while the 11 other companies seem to share the oddly coincidental characteristic of being wildly popular with the public. In its announcement, Interval has declared itself a "ground-breaking contributor to the development of the internet economy" and says all it wants to do is "protect [its] investment in innovation."

It's hard not to see the lawsuit as a patent troll—especially given the fact that Interval doesn't actually produce any products and the word "licensing" is right in the company's name. Still, Allen and his spokesperson David Postman clearly believe that they are defending a concept that is not practically universal among search engines and web browsers, but rather something that would not exist at all had Interval not come up with it.

"We are not asserting patents that other companies have filed, nor are we buying patents originally assigned to someone else," Postman said in a statement. "These are patents developed by and for Interval."

A Google spokesperson responded to the lawsuit by saying that it uses the patent system to work against innovation, not for it. "This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace," the spokesperson said. "Innovation—not litigation—is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit millions of people around the world." (Apple did not respond to our request for comment by publication time.)

Some of the defendants, such as Apple and Google, have gone on record in support of serious patent reform in the US, though such reform is still a ways away. Courts have increasingly put patents through the "obviousness test" in recent years when deciding patent cases, too, which will undoubtedly come into play if this lawsuit doesn't end in a settlement.

Bleh. I always end up feeling the same way when I read about Apple or Microsoft or Google or RIM or Nokia, etc. doing this. It might be legal but it sure is distasteful and doesn't exactly help PR. I felt the same way when Apple went after HTC. This competition through litigation is pathetic no matter what company is doing it.

"...while the 11 other companies seem to share the oddly coincidental characteristic of being wildly popular with the public."

What a surprise. I have said it before and I will say it again: I fully believe that if you knowingly allow others to violate your patent and you choose not to enforce it, you should forfeit your rights to do so in the future. This would eliminate patent trolling. Give them a 6 month grace period. Beyond that you lose. You should not be allowed to sit and wait until such a time that you can reap a larger "reward".

Bleh. I always end up feeling the same way when I read about Apple or Microsoft or Google or RIM or Nokia, etc. doing this. It might be legal but it sure is distasteful and doesn't exactly help PR. I felt the same way when Apple went after HTC. This competition through litigation is pathetic no matter what company is doing it.

I totally agree and I was gonna post the same thing about Apple and HTC. The PR in this nothing but bad for all involved. I too feel the same way about all those companies mentioned. As the corporate world turns...

"browser use for navigating through information," That's patenting a tautology. He didn't patent a browser, so this one shouldn't be called a patent, just plain wasted money."managing a user's peripheral attention while using a device," Another tautology. You can't make an useful device which doesn't give you information."and alerting users to items of current interest" Sue newspapers!

I'm sorry. If you can't see that the patent system is broken, you're a fool.

Dang. Paul Allen was one of my favorite eccentric billionaires... left Microsoft early, spent his money on cool stuff like SpaceShipOne and the Experience Music Project, buying sports teams and megayachts, as well as a pretty good record on philanthropy. Seemed like a good "what I would do" example of being a billionaire.

Dang. Paul Allen was one of my favorite eccentric billionaires... left Microsoft early, spent his money on cool stuff like SpaceShipOne and the Experience Music Project, buying sports teams and megayachts, as well as a pretty good record on philanthropy. Seemed like a good "what I would do" example of being a billionaire.

"...while the 11 other companies seem to share the oddly coincidental characteristic of being wildly popular with the public."

What a surprise. I have said it before and I will say it again: I fully believe that if you knowingly allow others to violate your patent and you choose not to enforce it, you should forfeit your rights to do so in the future. This would eliminate patent trolling. Give them a 6 month grace period. Beyond that you lose. You should not be allowed to sit and wait until such a time that you can reap a larger "reward".

Surely there is prior art to be found (doesn't that invalidate these patent claims)?

I guess that's the multi-million dollar question, whether they can find prior art that is exactly as claimed. If they can, the claims will be held invalid. And there's no better prior art search done than during multi-million dollar patent litigation.

The patents seem to be issued 2005,2004,2008,2004. The question is timing; why now? This article seems to be very thin on details, and title alone is enough to describe the content. Dig a little deeper?

I love reading about the stupidity of US law in allowing software patents. It seems to be getting to the stage where American software development is becoming hindered for large corporations and possibly killed for start-ups. The absurdity has become so ridiculous that no one really has any idea who owns what until you get sued.

So the fact that a lot of these patents are coming up to six years old means that it is now time to file a nice law suit, you ask for six years damages say 10% of all google income as it is based of your patents and hope...

Either you get a nice fat settlement cheque or you have spent a few hundred thousand pounds while the defence spends millions for ensuring they can continue as normal, meanwhile normal people lose their jobs as the companies tighten there belts in order to still give adequate return to shareholders.

When are we all going to realize that rich people are a pain in our collective asses?

When are poor bleeding heart liberals going to realize that a great many rich people got that way by coming up with an idea, working damned hard to build on it and are now reaping the benefits. They did it by not sitting on their asses, waiting for a handout and complaining about how rich everyone else is and how much a pain in the ass people are for achieving something they couldn't.